The aftermath of the war on Yugoslavia is not following
the typical pattern. Usually, the commander in chief
basks in the glow of victory. Medals are handed out,
parades organized, speeches given to the masses. Veterans
are heralded as preservers of freedom. The national soul
swells in patriotic fervor. The merchants of death gain a
new lease on life.

Not this time. There is no victory glow, no parades, no
flag waving. Outside the mainstream media, there is a
curious lack of any bragging at all. There are no yellow
ribbons adorning trees. Indeed, veterans of this war are
more pitied than praised. Veterans of past wars are
rushing to repudiate the whole mess.

As regards the "national soul," it is pretty much what it
was before and during the war: skeptical of any pronouncement
from D.C. Meanwhile, Congress has moved on to the usual civic
pieties: promising to reform a smattering of failed programs,
dreaming up new ways of regulating our lives, and celebrating
Rosa Parks. Even Clinton seems to be backing away from the
topic of the war. What gives?

This war never enjoyed wide or deep public support, and for
good reason. It was an attack on a far-away soveriegn country
that never did anything to any American. No interests of this
country were threatened, or even affected, by the 600-year-
long struggle between Christians and Muslims over Kosovo. The
U.S. bombing was simply an aggression of the sort the Russians
used to accuse us of.

Even now, it is difficult to know the real reason for
intervention, since no one believes that the Clinton
Administration cares about human-rights violations. You
can't take anti-brutality sermons seriously when the preacher
is simultaneously bombing hospitals, schools, and water
systems, and killing innocents as a war tactic. Far from
giving rise to nationalist pride, U.S. behavior forms a pit
in your stomach.

Clinton tried to draw on antique war myths and accuse his
opponents of appeasement in the face of evil. But it didn't
fly. His poll ratings actually declined during the war, an
astounding fact in light of the tendency of war to unite a
country behind the ruling regime. And these numbers are
from phone polls that dramatically under-assess the level
of dissatisfaction with existing government policy. The war
was supported with intensity by very few, mostly those who
had something to gain from it.

Even according to NATO's own stated aims, the war was not a
success. The final treaty steps away from the absurd demands
made in the Rambouillet talks. And from a humane point of
view, the war was catastrophic, with thousands dead and an
entire society in ruins. The lack of public celebration of
victory reflects a widespread acknowledgment of this.

The truth about this war was not being spread by mainstream
organs of opinion, of course. But thanks to the Internet, this
was the first war in which a sizeable number of Americans had
access to alternative media. News from anti-war sites was just
as accessible as that from pro-war sites (again, the mainstream
media). So there was no need to rely on the warfare state's
spokesmen, and those who parrot their opinions.

The contrast between truth and propaganda was so dramatic that
we all received an education in how war disinformation works.
Even NATO was sometimes forced to admit that it had lied
about its own iniquities. It was either confess, or lose
all credibility.

One of the few reporters to deal somewhat frankly with NATO
atrocities was Steven Erlanger of The New York Times, though
he waited until the NATO occupation to unburden himself fully.
Writing in the New York Times Magazine (June 13, 1999), he
points out that no one, Serbian or Albanian, believed "that
this was anything but Washington's war." All the prattle
about allies was just a fig leaf.

He further confirms that the U.S. was, "perhaps out of
frustration," deliberately targeting civilians. One "month
into the war, no Serb believed that the bombs were not aimed
at them or that NATO hit anything - even hospitals or the
Chinese Embassy - by error."

He tells a horrifying story about the massacre at Aleksinac.
Reporters were invited to view the death inflicted on
civilians by NATO. As they walked, "Western reporters joked
to inure themselves to the bloody human remains on which
they were unavoidably stepping." But Serbians standing
nearby said, "listen to the bastards, speaking English and
laughing." Serbians wept, says Erlanger, not only at the
loss of life and property, but also "for the death of their
own misconceptions of America."

And now, we hear of individual Serbs being run out of Kosovo,
80,000 at last count, frightened of terrorism directed
against them that NATO is either powerless to stop or de
facto encouraging. When a handful of Serbs refuses to
collaborate, and dares to resist the foreign occupiers with
guns, can anyone really say they are wrong? As Erlanger notes,
even Serbs "have a right to their patriotism, and to their
national myths, and to their grief."

There's a scene in Godfather when Michael Corleone tells his
new girlfriend how his father once offered a contract to a
man at gunpoint. His father said, "either your brains or your
signature are going to be on that paper." His girlfriend
freezes in horror, but Michael quickly assures her, "that's
my family, Kate, it's not me."

It's difficult for Americans to consider the immense human
suffering inflicted on Yugoslavia with weapons built by our
tax dollars. Far from celebrating, there is a widespread
tendency to avoid even thinking about it. But for those who
do think, this war makes them want to cry out to the
world: that was the government's war, not mine.

(Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. is th president of the Ludwig
von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama.)

Return to the 'NATO Bombing - has it brought peace to the Balkans?' Alert.